Report of a Federal Judicial Center study of summary judgment practice in six federal district courts during six time periods over twenty-five years (1975-2000), to determine whether summary judgment activity has increased over time and to what extent changes in summary judgment practice are due to the 1986 Supreme Court trilogy of summary judgment cases. From 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 861-907 (2007).

The Center prepared this report at the request of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules as it considers whether to amend Rule 16 to incorporate the government's constitutional obligation to provide exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense or, instead, to create a broader disclosure obligation. The Center conducted a national survey, which included an online survey of all federal district and magistrate judges, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, federal defenders, and a sample of defense attorneys in criminal cases that terminated during calendar year 2009.

The Center prepared this report at the request of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules as it considers whether to amend Rule 16 to incorporate the government's constitutional obligation to provide exculpatory and impeachment evidence to the defense or, instead, to create a broader disclosure obligation. The Center conducted a national survey, which included an online survey of all federal district and magistrate judges, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, federal defenders, and a sample of defense attorneys in criminal cases that terminated during calendar year 2009.

A paper that examines the application of the sanctions provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 during the first few years after the 1983 amendments to the rule, with emphasis on appellate cases. The paper describes emerging patterns, identifying situations in which the appellate courts have found sanctions to be clearly applicable and situations in which appellate courts have demonstrated restraint in applying the rule to certain litigation practices.

At the request of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, Professor Daniel Capra, committee reporter, listed instances where Congress either rejected or substantially changed rules before passage, thus rendering advisory committee notes possibly confusing. He provides an introduction and a rule-by-rule commentary on these discrepancies.

Judge Paul W. Grimm, District of Maryland, developed the attached PowerPoint presentation describing the 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The amendments reformed discovery rules to maximize efficiency, including cost containment, and were not intended to deprive parties in civil litigation of proof or defense.

The Federal Judicial Center produced and maintains this site in furtherance of its statutory mission. The Center regards the contents of this site to be responsible and valuable, but these contents do not reflect official policy or recommendation of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center. The site also contains links to relevant information on websites maintained by other organizations; providing these external links is for the convenience of this site's users and does not constitute verification or endorsement of the information or the sites to which the links are produced. Opinions expressed in the materials found on this site are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.